From a story with no byline at WorldNetDaily:
Slavery is shockingly common in the world today: in homes, factories, farms and brothels. The most common form is bonded servitude, or holding people to work off debts with stratospheric interest rates. One widely held estimate puts the number of people in slavery at 27 million. The U.S. CIA estimates that up to 900,000 people are sold across international borders each year. The trade is illegal, and officially condemned, throughout the world. Yet it flourishes, earning perhaps $7 billion a year for its perpetrators.
The U.S. Department of State lists 72 nations – including Brazil, China and the Czech Republic – that aid slavery or are home to it. The five countries below are singled out as "countries whose governments do not fully comply with the minimum standards [to eliminate trafficking in humans] and are not making significant efforts to do so":
Burma: Internal factory work and prostitution; export to the Asian sex trade.Cuba: Forced labor; sexual exploitation connected with the government-run tourism industry.
Liberia: Forcible conscription in the military as laborers, soldiers and sex slaves.
North Korea: Forced labor; export of brides to China.
Sudan: Sex slaves, domestic workers, laborers and soldiers.
Problem here: I recognized that language from Quentin Hardy's cover story in the January 12, 2004 issue of Forbes, which can be read here. The first paragraph I quoted appears on page 76 of my copy of Forbes, while the rest appears in a sidebar, entitled "Bottom of the Barrel," on page 78.
In the original Hardy story, the first sentence ends in "on every continent except Antarctica." Otherwise, the material is lifted word for word, with no attribution to either Quentin Hardy or Forbes.
I'll be contacting WorldNetDaily about this. I'm sure it's an honest mistake, so there shouldn't be a problem with issuing a correction and an apology, right?
[Update, February 23, 2004: They never did. That first plagiarized paragraph now begins, "As Forbes recently reported..." Big deal. "Forbes" is not italicized, as it should be to indicate that it's the title of a magazine, and both paragraphs are used word for word without a quotation mark to indicate that that's what's been done.]
I've admired Woody Allen's prose ever since reading Getting Even as a teenager. You can't argue with a line like "She wore a short skirt and a tight sweater and her figure described a set of parabolas that could cause cardiac arrest in a yak."
So when Radley Balko posted his assertion that "Woody Allen still has a little in the tank," I was eager to go for a read. I wasn't disappointed:
And so I approached Miss Kelly's gravitational field and could feel my strings vibrating. All I knew was that I wanted to wrap my weak-gauge bosons around her gluons, slip through a wormhole, and do some quantum tunnelling.
It was at this point that I was rendered impotent by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. How could I act if I couldn't determine her exact position and velocity? And what if I should suddenly cause a singularity; that is, a devastating rupture in space-time? They're so noisy. Everyone would look up and I'd be embarrassed in front of Miss Kelly. Ah, but the woman has such good dark energy. Dark energy, though hypothetical, has always been a turn-on for me, especially in a female who has an overbite.
Hmmm....seems that Allen returns to cetain themes again and again. We all do.
Cellist David Waterman, writing in the Guardian, about playing in the Endellion String Quartet for twenty-five years:
No, the answer lies simply in the miracle of the vast panorama of great masterpieces that is the quartet repertoire. It is the repository of the most intimate, imaginative, ever-fresh creations of most of the greatest composers of the past 250 years. It is a never-ending challenge and delight to try to deepen our grasp of these fathomless masterpieces; that is what lures all quartets on and keeps us happily, or unhappily, enthralled.
I know people who regard chamber music as too sweet for their taste, fit only for genteel old ladies who lift their little fingers as they sip their late-afternoon tea. But I agree with Waterman: "imaginative," "fathomless masterpieces" are indeed to be found in chamber music. Listen to the Guarneri Quartet go at the Beethoven late string quartets. Perhaps those little old ladies are more adventurous than you think.
(Hat tip to Art and Letters Daily)
No, not Helen Hunt (sorry, guys). Week 16 of The Hunt for the Snark is now up. Go visit Venomous Kate and check out the links. I occasionally participate in the Hunt myself, and no, that is not meant as a disclaimer, but as a shameless plug, just like my mention of Helen Hunt, above, or adding something about perfect teen asses.
From "Radio 3 to air Cage's 'silence,' " BBC News UK Edition:
The BBC Symphony Orchestra is to give a performance of composer John Cage's seminal piece 4'33" - nearly five minutes of complete silence.
BBC Radio 3 is to broadcast the entire composition live, even having to switch off its emergency system which cuts in when there is apparent silence.
The late avant-garde composer "wrote" the piece in 1952.
The performance takes place on Friday at London's Barbican Centre, as part of a weekend celebrating Cage's work.
TV viewers will also be able to watch the event when BBC Four broadcasts the concert, which also features works that music lovers will be able to hear.
Cage's reasoning for composing 4'33" was to demonstrate that "wherever we are what we hear mostly is noise".
You know they're out there, crippled with envy, those who delight in cutting down the giants among us, those who enjoy nothing more than mocking true greatness. Did you, for example, catch that snippy line about "works that music lovers will be able to hear"? Oh, and at the very beginning, that reference to Cage's "seminal" piece? Eh? As if 4'33" were the product of what my fellow Marines might refer to as a "dishonorable discharge," if you get my drift.
I am a classical guitarist. I'm very concerned about enlarging the guitar repertoire. I was warned about transcribing 4'33" for the guitar: I was told that I'd be laboring in obscurity and in vain, that the guitar just wasn't the appropriate instrument for that work, that no one would ever hear it.
But no, this Cage masterpiece had to be rendered for the guitar. So I've spent years on the effort. It's been difficult, it's been frustrating...for example, getting the rhythm just right is crucial to this piece. Especially the rests.
But I was inspired by, among others, the great Segovia, who transcribed so much Bach for the guitar; by John Cage himself, of course. By Marcel Marceau.
You know, Varese and Stockhausen groped toward this--but John Cage found perfection, pure form. I'm intimidated every time I play this piece on my guitar. But I'm inspired as well.
So I persevered, and it's been worth every bit of effort. Now, I'm proud of my transcription of 4'33". Listening to it on the guitar, I think you'll find yourself wondering if the guitar hadn't been Cage's original choice of instrument all along. And I play it all the time: it's become, without doubt, the strongest piece in my repertoire. Now it's available for all guitarists, everywhere. I've published my transcription, below, with my own fingering indications and tablature.
My next project? Actually I'm going to transcribe the same piece for diatonic harmonica. I'd like to have 4'33" available for the cello...but I'm already playing it on the harmonica all the time, so that comes next. And I don't play the cello.
TRANSCRIPTION OF 4'33" FOR THE GUITAR:
.
According to Clint Eastwood, anyway.
The February issue of Men's Journal offers the Peter Travers cover story, "The Clint Eastwood Guide to Life," which itself contains a list of ten rules a man should live by. I was amused by number 8--Learn to play the piano, and by number 9--You are what you drive.
Hmm...I drive an Intrepid, so that makes me...well hell, you got it from Clint Eastwood, right? I am what I drive, so there.
As for playing the piano, nothing compares to my insightful, stormy yet sensitive rendition of John Cage's 4'33"...
Remember the news from France last spring and summer? No, not that news--I'm talking about the strikes, threats of strikes, demonstrations, and counter-demonstrations. The mess even, briefly, threatened to disturb the French stops on the Rolling Stones' 40th-anniversary tour.
A central figure in much of that was Sabine Herold, one of the few libertarian activists in France. Now, you may, like me, be tempted to say that by French standards anyone short of a thoroughgoing Stalinist qualifies as a libertarian. Still, you'll enjoy reading this interview with Mlle. Herold, courtesy of Andrew Schwartz and The Atlasphere.
Here's what she says about why a friend (and libertarian activist-colleague) liked The Virtue of Selfishness:
What he told me he liked about it is that it's based on moral issues and values. And that's how we view libertarianism. I think one of the problems in France is that libertarians are only focused on economic issues. That is not the most important thing. Of course, I think it's really important to be economically libertarian. But what is really the basis of a free society is the idea that people should be free to decide for themselves in any area — that means economically, but also in social issues, moral issues, or any issue. The economy is important but it's not the whole of it.
Also, economics is something that is very boring for many people. I think if you want to touch many people, you should not speak in an economic way — you should tell them about values.
Posted by Craig Ceely at 10:04 AM | Comments (0)
From the Telegraph, in London, this story by Sarah Womack, under the headline "Strutting your stuff in stilettos is good for you":
New research will bring joy to the hearts of Sex and the City's Carrie and Charlotte, and shoe-loving women everywhere - high heels may actually help their wearers avoid painful knee conditions.
Fears that stilettos could lead to knee arthritis are unfounded, according to researchers at Warwick University who say 3in heels reduce the risks of joint problems.
Prof Margaret Thorogood, from the university's medical school, said high heels did not cause knee problems but being overweight before 40, doing demanding physical work and previous knee injuries did.
In fact, there was a link between regular dancing in 3in heels and a reduced risk of knee problems.
I have no knowledge of similar research being conducted on fishnets, bustiers, or mules. When I hear of it, you'll hear of it.
But I'd like to ask Professor Thorogood: if three-inch heels are beneficial, should you not investigate the health-supporting, life-affirming value of six-inch heels?
Just a few minutes ago, listening to a story on NPR, my son asked, "If a baby had a seizure, how would you know, 'cause they always act like they're having seizures anyway?"
One of Life's Unanswerable Questions. It occurs to me that ten year old boys always seem to be in the midst of seizures themselves, but far be it from me to discourage curiosity.
Tyler Cowen has an interesting post on Laughter, over at Marginal Revolution.
So why laugh, anyway?
Maybe Robert Provine can tell us. Provine is a University of Maryland, Baltimore County, professor and a behavioral neurobiologist. He argues that laughter is a social signal, that it's all about bonding between and among people.
He also theorizes that tickling is the origin of laughter. Strange, in that most ticklish people hate being tickled.
The idea that laughter works as a kind of social glue fits with some other other observations. A baby's first giggle comes at around three or four months, which also happens to be the time the baby starts to recognise individual faces. And the way we laugh depends on the company we're keeping. Men tend to laugh longer and harder when they are with other men, perhaps as a way of bonding. Women tend to laugh more [almost fifty percent more] and at a higher pitch when men are present, possibly indicating flirtation or even submission.
Yes, I can remember my infant son smiling at me: best feeling in the world (he's now ten going on sixteen and his method of bonding is to say, "I hate you.").
Why did laughter evolve?, by Bob Holmes, discusses Provine and others on laughter. It also mentions a dissenting view: the University of Georgia's Charles Gruner believes that laughter is an aggressive act. Worth a read.
And if anyone out there would like to present me with a gift of Robert Mayhew's Ayn Rand on Humor, why, I'd accept. With a grateful chuckle, of course.
(Hat tip to Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution)
Just checking my blog stats, and found that I'm in the top five results for "glenfiddich chocolate" at msn.co.uk. I don't think I'm quite what the searcher was looking for.
On the other hand, let's hear it for expanded horizons, no?
Those who would be writers quickly discover that reality can be their ally or their competition. The phrase employed is, "You can't make this stuff up."
So it appears that the last Sunday of each January (this year it'll be the 25th) has been designated International Internet-Free Day.
I found out about it on the Internet.
They're promoting it on the Internet, at International Internet-Free Day. They had a web site, although they no longer seem to own the domain www.internet-free-day.org. How sad. Or not: perhaps they have now managed to become completely Internet-free?
I can see the bloggers celebrating now...
The evidence is clear and compelling: some people have too much time on their hands. I mean--well, you just can't make this stuff up.
There's an interesting online debate going on, between Robert Bidinotto and Roderick T. Long, on the subject of anarchism versus the minimal state. Long provides the relevant links in this post at the Liberty & Power" group blog.
Yes, I know some are bored with this one by now. I'm not. I'm not an agnostic on this subject, although I do lean toward anarchism...but I haven't quite made up my mind. Perhaps I'm a bit of a conservative, but I wonder how an anarchistic society would be defended against predatory states--and they do exist: I was never sympathetic, for example, to Murray Rothbard's assertion that the USSR was less of a threat to world peace than the USA. But there's the rub: all states are predatory.
On the other hand, I was in Beirut, Lebanon when that city was the hottest place in the world. "Competing defense agencies," indeed.
So far, I think the anarchists have the moral high ground, especially in terms of Ayn Rand's statement that there can be no such thing as an unchosen obligation. And it is easy to see that all actual services of value to users can be provided by actors in the private sector. But I wonder: where does that leave such cherished notions as equal protection under the law?
Remember using the Internet before the advent of the World Wide Web? If you do, you might appreciate this story from the Independent: Tim Berners-Lee, who developed the protocols for the World Wide Web, is named in the New Year's Honours List for "services to the internet" and is to be knighted.
There's no immediate financial benefit to a knighthood, as far as I know, nor is there any career path per se as a knight (Sir Tim lives and works in the USA anyway). But Berners-Lee is a British subject and the selection is still regarded by most as an honor, so I'm glad to see it happen.
From the Independent:
The system, which he developed in his spare time in 1991 while working as a researcher at the European particle research laboratory Cern, features billions of web pages used by hundreds of millions of people every day.
Crucially, Mr Berners-Lee gave his invention away rather than trying to patent or restrict its use, making it possible for the web to grow at a rate never seen. Without his creation, there would be no "www" computer addresses, and the internet might still be the exclusive domain of a handful of computer experts.
I'm not praising Berners-Lee, by the way, for giving away his invention. I'm praising him for having been creative enough to invent it in the first place (and in his "spare time?"). If, like me, you've used and enjoyed amazon.com, Yahoo!Groups, expedia.com, or blogging, you have Tim Berners-Lee to thank. He made the Internet easy to use.
Thanks, Sir Tim. Pleased to have you on this side of the pond.
(Cross-posted to the Ayn Rand Meta-Blog)
I've been invited to contribute to the Ayn Rand Meta-Blog, another project from the people who created The Atlasphere. I've accepted, and my first post will be up shortly.
The entry I have in mind will be cross-posted here, but you should check it out anyway, because people like Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Gregory Wharton and Diana Hsieh and Joshua Zader are also contributors there, so if you like their blogs and other stuff, you'll probably enjoy a stop by the Ayn Rand Meta-Blog.
Check out Chris Matthew Sciabarra's end-of-the-year Atlasphere survey on Ayn Rand's continuing influence, "The Cultural Ascendancy of Ayn Rand."